For your "empty messaging" collection

*

Yes, for sure! Progressive Democrats are certain to resonate to this kind of twaddle while the Obama White House is simultaneously busy with futile but chilling expressions of authority that will seem inexplicable and evil to any person who has grown up with open access to the internet. You know what kind of people those are: Obama's base.

I believe it's inevitable that President Obama will have a stiff primary challenge in 2012 from the progressive wing of his party, and that it will be strongly supported by the progressive wing of society at large.

Ten-dimensional Rigelian Chess in the Neutral Zone

*

I can't keep up with it, being just meat and bone and a small nugget of gray matter on a stick. In my guts I feel it would be expecting too much to view the President's healthcare reform "summit" as an intentional gimmick to trap Republican Senate leadership into showing the public how gormless they are; how unprepared they are to withstand any rhetorical pushback; how full of shit they are. But the Republicans themselves have already let that cat out of the bag: they fear it and are stupid enough to say so. And, significantly, Obama has proactively taken ownership of the "Obamacare" sobriquet by throwing his own proposal on the table, so his own executive prestige is on the table, too. To me that means Obama is going to use all his good offices to make sure we have a Democrat-driven healthcare reform package signed into law within a few weeks if not sooner. Likewise, Sen. Dick Durbin (majority whip) also put his manhood on the table by declaring that Democrats will move forward to pass legislation without Republicans. They really have no choice now except to do it or reap permanent contempt from all sides, forever.

Good show, blokes. Except Obama, Durbin, and others like Tom Harkin are pretty much declaring that the public option is dead in the process. Why? In a game 10-dimensional Rigelian chess, you see, it doesn't matter that most people in this country are strongly in favor of government-administered health insurance for people who can't afford private insurance, or that analysis by the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that a healthcare bill would be less expensive with a public option than without one. (Google your own sources tonight, kids; I'm tired.) What really matters, according to the rules of this game, is The Spectacle and, especially, how the adversary perceives it.

Maybe we'll get something and maybe we'll get another 9 months of melodrama. Will Glenn Beck holler "rape!" at a NARAL convention? Will Harry Reid get another Lieberman tattoo on his inner thigh? Will Barack Obama carve an "O" in Sarah Palin's forehead for real this time? I'd be satisfied with a more modest spectacle: Democratic Senators publically dripping contempt on their esteemed sociopathic friends across the aisle.

When Republicans declare that most Americans oppose the House and Senate healthcare reform proposals, I wonder why 33rd Degree Rigelian Chessmaster Obama doesn't kindly reply that two-thirds of that opposition comes from people who think the law needs a public option. And then kindly order Reid, Durbin, Pelosi, and Hoyer to make it so on penalty of immediate reassignment to administer umox at a Ferengi leper colony. It would be a regular spectacle.

See how it works?

*
It works like this: Jay Rockefeller denounces Howard Dean as "irresponsible" for suggesting that lousy HCR legislation be scrapped, but he doesn't denounce Joseph Lieberman (King of the United States) as irresponsible for aggressively acting to scrap the HCR legislation unless Rockefeller's public option was removed from the language.

Sure, Jay is upset, he confesses. But that doesn't mean "...I take my football, and run home and sulk, and complain, or hold out for $100 million for something in West Virginia," he assures us. No, he mans up to it all and... blames Howard Dean.

Wherein I have a sissyfight with JMM

*
It should be evident to anyone who reads this that Josh Marshall is my media hero, mainly due to the accomplishments of his TPM investigative reporting unit and his fine capacity both for issuing political ridicule and championing human decency. But today, with this post and a few earlier ones, the lad has disgustipated me. Just like that, both the public option and Medicare buy-in are dead at the hands of the King and Queen of the United States, Joseph and Olympia. But Josh thinks that furious progressives (not to mention the majority of Americans) should bend over and take it for the good of the Democratic Party. I wrote a note to tell Josh, politely, that he's full of shit. Here it is, for what it's worth:

“Ravening masses,” Josh? Really? Pheeewwww!

So many “responsible” liberals, like some who pontificate in your comments threads and sometimes you yourself, always seem ready to provide cover to “serious” politicians like the putative King and Queen of the United States, Lieberman and Snowe, when they bargain in bad faith in order to destroy progressive public policy initiatives that are favored by a majority of Americans. These people enable the erosion of majority rule by lecturing us about how "something is really better than nothing," and that if we threaten to pull our support then we’re “taking our marbles and going home.” We’re engaging in political theater instead of political activism. We need to grow up. Or whatever.

Progressives are authorized by you to speak our piece --- gosh, thanks!!! --- but not to use our own political muscle to sabotage King Joseph’s health care vision for us peasants (which is to say, no meaningful reform whatsoever plus increased costs for many, many working people). Withdrawing support from this ugly policy initiative would be irresponsible of progressives, you say; a “cop out.” Pheeewwww! You rarely reek of sanctimony, but today you sure do.

Joe Lieberman, with constant backroom assistance from Rahm Emanuel in the White House and the entire GOP as a pom pom squad, blocks and scuttles majority rule in this country, and “responsible” liberals cluck a pretty good game about it. But in the final analysis, betrayed progressives are expected to STFU, accede to King Joseph’s proclamations, and “improve it” later. Tell me: what makes you believe that it will be feasible to “improve it” later if King Joseph and Queen Olympia do not wish it to be improved? Seriously: what makes you think that is a possibility?

This situation represents an epic failure of Democratic leadership, especially by Obama, who is supposed to be, um, a leader after all. Since you are a “political junkie,” I will direct your attention to Machiavelli’s “The Prince.” Machiavelli’s contribution to political science was not his prescriptions for achieving ends by any means, but by describing what successful leaders from history *did* to achieve their ends. And, as you’re fond of saying, it wasn’t through bean bag. I’m not suggesting that President Obama lead his adversaries to their demise behind a velvet curtain, Caesar Borgia style. But geez: RTFM! For starters, you don’t invite a Fifth Columnist from the other side into your tent, at least not if you expect to keep your own counsel. Next, you do use your charm, your guile, and your muscle to compel people (particularly opportunists) to get with your program. Neither Obama nor Harry Reid seem to have any idea whatsoever about how to get anything done, except on behalf of King Joseph and Queen Olympia. Step back and ask yourself, what is really going on here? If Obama really believes he’s playing 11-dimensional chess, as Atrios likes to joke, then he’s stalemated in half of the dimensions and checkmated in the rest.

If this useless HCR legislation represents a “responsible” liberal’s idea of the best the Democratic Party can do to help our constitutional democracy start clawing its way out of the hole after 30 years of Reagan Revolution, then you can have it. It makes zero real-world difference if policy wonks see some advantages to passing the current legislation: there’s nothing in it for me or anyone I know. It makes zero difference to me that scuttling this version of HCR would be an embarrassment and a 2010 electoral disaster: they deserve it.

To be more specific, the “responsible” Democratic Party does not deserve the support of progressives as it has “progressively” been undermining our interests since the day Ronald Reagan smirked his way into the Oval Office and tore out the solar panels. I totally advocate that progressives should “pick up our marbles and go home.” They’re *our* marbles! And you can’t succeed without them any more than you can succeed without Lieberman’s marbles. Politics ain't bean bag. So go ahead, “responsible” liberals: call us “cop outs.” Cluck about us from now until the inauguration of President Lieberman and Vice President Snowe. Maybe that will be change you can believe in. But not me.

So then, Josh wrote back:

"[StuporMundi], You might want to adjust your sensor for facetious post titles."

And then, my tit for a tat (and I'm done, because basically he's a mensch):

Maybe my sensor does need adjusting, Josh. But judging by the body of your post, the title doesn't seem facetious at all. Your point appears to be that the ravening masses need to get with the Lieberman/Snowe/Landrieu program because it provides "monumental gains" relative to something or other. And that progressives who want to use Lieberman's tactics to scuttle the legislation are irresponsible "cop-outs." So maybe the title of your post is facetious in your eyes only, but actually an accurate indicator of your intended meaning. (Incidentally, there was something more to my note than the throwaway comment about the title of your post. Maybe there was some substance, maybe not.)

Judging from what you wrote, it seems that in your view this HCR legislation must clear the Senate *not* because it's good for U.S. citizens, but because it would be an electoral disaster for the Democrats to come away empty handed. If that's the case, so be it. If the Republicans are going to continue dictating regressive national policy through people like Lieberman and Snowe (and helpmeets like Rahm Emanuel), then let's allow the GOP to directly control the levers of government so they can be fully held to account when all the chickens come to roost. Today Krugman said, not ironically, that this nation is well on its way to failed-state status. I agree, and am not sanguine about that.

That's all. A bunch of recycled words about my hissy fit in the blogosphere today. This Lieberman/Snowe agenda is pretty much what I've been expecting the Senate to come up with. We've been treated to 6 months of political theater: Garfield Goose on the Little Theater Screen. My political contributions for the foreseeable future will be routed to progressive Democrats challenging apparatchiks like Harry Reid and Claire McCaskill and Max Baucus in primaries.

Update before I'm done: JMM and I had one more exchange but it's not worth reporting because I need to log off and download some more purple booze into my gullet.

Knock knock Harry Reid

*
Stories like this warm the cockles of my black heart, and that's not easy to do any more.

"If Harry Reid does not have the leadership skills to get 60 votes for cloture and give a Democratic president an up-or-down vote on health care, progressives will help defeat him in 2010, even if that means Republicans take that seat," said the head of one progressive organization...."

Believe me --- I'm in for $50 if muscular progressive groups like ActBlue and FireDogLake decide to put the electoral hit on Reid if he doesn't deliver (1) a Senate health reform bill with a real, robust public option and (2) 60 Democrat votes for cloture on any filibuster that Republicans might attempt on said bill.

Weeding out "Blue Dog" Democrats (i.e., crypto-Republicans) could feasibly be done with extreme prejudice by activist groups. Republicans have been doing the same thing for decades. The first Senate targets should be the offenders who have the most to lose, such as senior leaders and major committee chairs --- the glam jobs --- people who have attained the highest prestige, power, and visibility in life that they are capable of. There will never be a President Harry Reid, or a Chief Justice Max Baucus. They will never be bigger celebrities than they are right now, and they need to know that some human nobody in Chicago Heights with $50 to spare can help to take it all away from them forever in the next election. (Can there be anything more humiliating in this society than a loss of celebrity?)

Now, specifically, Harry Reid needs to know that there are a lot of people out here in the howling darkness* who aren't interested in his weasling promises about "something like" a public option. He needs to read the fucking opinion polls and take a long hard think about "where he wants to be in 5 years," as the old job interview question goes. Harry Reid is applying for a job in the Senate next year, just like sixty-something other people who are up for re-election or challenging an incumbent. America has no particular need for the talents of Harry Reid as Senate Supermajority Leader if he's not on board with the supermajority of Americans who want affordable universal health insurance. I bet our Land o' Lincoln homeboy Dick Durbin would be happy to ascend to Harry Reid's lofty station in life with a non-super majority ranging between 51 - 59 Senate Democrats. Unless he doesn't have the stomach for it. In which case, another impromptu mob of furious middle-American nobodies may raise the bet by $50 times a lot and help to put him out of the game, too.

If this Democrat supermajority prefers to shelter the predatory insurance industry from the will of three-quarters of the voters (and vice versa), then let them go do it in the private sector. There is room to purge nine of them, starting in 2010. Almost like Agatha Christie wrote the script: nine little Indians... and then there were none.
_____________
*Editor's note: "howling darkness" was invented by Jean Shepherd.

Healthcare fact checking? For real?

*
Facts?!? What the hell are facts doing on NPR and in a non-Krugman Times Blog? I'm a-skeert!

But there you are: ATC host Robert Siegel and NYT healthcare blogger Anne Underwood pretty thoroughly shoot down barefaced distortions pertaining to the costs of litigation, malpractice insurance, and defensive medicine told on Sunday Times op/ed page by former Senator Bill Bradley. It was a refreshing and unexpected piece of journalism to my shell-like ears, which are no longer accustomed to such spectacles as, uh, professional journalism being broadcast on NPR.

I'll have to dock Siegel and Underwood a few points for not directly calling Bradley a lying sack or reporting who is paying his wages and stipends these days. But gee whiz --- I'm actually slightly impressed!

Healthcare reform town hall fashion statement

*
In the comments thread of a previous post, Big Otis indicated that he would exercise his Second Amendment Rights at an corn belt healthcare reform town hall meeting next week by brandishing a chainsaw. His reasoning, which appears sound to me, is that it's perfectly legal to carry power tools in public, even ones belching two-stroke engine exhaust. So, therefore, it must be doubly blessed to for Big Otis to defend himself with a nice American-made implement of dual-use technology such as the one hanging there all quiet in his tool shed.

Frequent commenter "Anonymous" calls the idea brilliant. I agree. I'll bet Big Otis could parlay this sincere expression of his Second Amendment Rights into appearances on CNN and FOX, not to mention Colbert and Democracy Now! It could start an exciting new trend in liberal activism, and BO could become the progressive incarnation of Joe The Plumber. Maybe the liberal grassroots also need to be watered with the blood of tyrants... but, oh, I think I already said too much. Never mind. Pass the blowtorch, please.

Above: Artist's rendition of Big Otis departing from his sleepy rural demesne to exercise his freedom of expression. Editor's note: this picture may be protected by copyright law; it is reproduced here under fair use rules solely for purposes of education and social commentary.

Cuddling enemies, losing friends [updated]

*
Big Otis referred me to this Jane Smiley column on HuffingtonPost, which says pretty much what I've been feeling about Obama over the past 2 months. My own thoughts have been bifurcated, with clarity recently provided by Niccolo Machiavelli during my rereading of The Prince (Everyman's Library edition, which rocks!).

First, Obama has inexplicably been pandering to his worst enemies during this so-called healthcare reform debate. Instead, he should read what Machiavelli wrote about the folly of sparing adversaries who have reason to hate you: you don't reach out to them for approval and empowerment --- you go on the TV and point out to craven media talkers and their audience that Republicans and "Blue Dogs" are willful liars who don't want regular people to have it as good as everyone in the TV studio has it. I have been planning future posts on this topic so I won't belabor it here.

Second, Obama is either disregarding the positions his mainstream supporters elected him to fight for, or else he feels he can be extremely coy, with no negative consequences, toward hundreds of thousands of small donors such as myself who made his ascendancy to the White House possible. Machiavelli stated repeatedly, with clarity, that the Prince must never lose the support of the people; Niccolo's much-misunderstood advocacy of treachery in the building of political power largely did not countenance deceit and abuse of the people. Again, I've been planning some writings on this topic for a later date.

I'll simply conclude here that Jane Smiley, as usual, is on target in the way she writes about her Obama trepidations. Barack Obama --- who has a hardcore vocal minority expressing open hatred for his ideals, his background, and his racial heritage on Main Street, around the office pop machine, and on corporate news networks --- cannot afford to end up in a position where he literally has no friends. I haven't written him off just yet, but I'll (generously) give him until the day after his first State of the Union address. This coyness shit will not work with his regular, everyday supporters forever... especially after a major political defeat by the very scum we elected him to neuter and tame.

Update: I just noticed that Paul Krugman blogged about these same two points this morning, but from the very specific perspective of the "public option" and its rhetorical place in the so-called healthcare reform debate. If Obama's electoral based trusted him, it would not necessarily see the public option as a litmus test for Obama's good intentions. But owing to the President's apparent lack of interest in forcefully promoting universal healthcare coverage or denouncing right-wing lies about it, Obama hasn't consolidated the trust of many of the people most active in getting him elected --- progressive volunteers and contributors.

Senator Burris at your service

*
Tonight I wrote some letters to elected officials insisting that they unequivocally support a meaningful Public Option in the healthcare bill now being worked by the Congress. To my Senators I wrote:

Dear Senator,

I want you to know that I and the voting members of my household consider the Public Option to be non-negotiable in any reform of the nation’s healthcare system.

It is clear to me that the opposition to the Public Option in the Senate consists mainly of Senators from small states in which a single healthcare insurance provider has an actual or virtual monopoly on the health insurance insurance market. Health insurance reform will not work, period, without injecting the field with actual competition. Without competition, insurers will continue to have a free hand in fixing premium rates artificially high in order to extract more “overhead” resources from healthcare consumers. I’m certain you are aware of the numerous “horror stories” about individuals who have been denied coverage, or who have even had their policies canceled without notice, on the eve of major, necessary medical procedures. The costs are ruinous for these people, as you must be aware.

At this point I do not feel it is enough for you to simply commit to supporting the public option. I ask that you use every advantage your seniority provides to convince reluctant Senators that it is in the best interests of the nation to support the public option --- even if it means taxing the employer-provided benefits of more affluent beneficiaries (including myself). I will back my opinion on this with campaign contributions to primary challengers in any state where a Democratic Senator has worked to defeat or undermine an effective Public Option in the healthcare insurance reform effort.

I do appreciate your work toward solving our healthcare insurance and cost crises. Please use your considerable persuasive powers to get everyone possible on board with this critical provision.

Sincerely,
Stupor J. Mundi

The above message was to Dick Durbin. A similar note (without references to senate seniority) went to Roland Burris, the junior Senator from Illinois who was, by U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Chicago), declared not to have "one iota of taint" when appointed to the post by Blago back in December. Tonight Burris was really johnny-on-the-spot for his constituent, with a lightning-fast reply even before I'd finished modifying the note for consumption by our U.S. Representative (who actually looks like he suffers from consumption). The Burris response is a marvel of clarity, concision, and timeliness:

Thank you very much for contacting my office to express your views. I will take your opinions and concerns into consideration as we debate these issues in the United States Senate and address challenges facing Illinois and the nation.

The constituents of Illinois are of the utmost importance to me, and it is an honor to work on your behalf by representing you in the United States Senate.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, DC office. Again, thank you and I am honored to serve you in the United States Senate.

Sincerely,
Roland W. Burris
United States Senator

Hurrah --- we're saved! That's some real constituent service, from one Senator without an iota of taint or an iota of class. Not even trying....

It's time for a "Reckless Homicide Tax" [updated]

*
In addition to empowering the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products, now let's levy a Reckless Homicide Tax on Big Tobacco. It's sole purpose would be to completely reimburse the Medicare and Medicaid programs for every single public health dollar spent to treat smoking-related diseases. The revenues from this tax would shrink the Medicaid funding crisis down to a size where we can drown it in the bathtub.

Update: it also appears that we may need to levy a Health Insurance Mafia Tax (to steal a term from Bob Cesca): a 100% tax on all proceeds, whether gains or the value of "paper losses" used for corporate tax breaks, by health insurers who invest in tobacco company stock. I'd also suggest that the Justice Department take a close look at all the tricky little words in the language of the RICO Act for possible future reference, just in case.

The Smirking Asshole Effect

It's Two-Part Quiz Time! Please answer in a short essay format (25 words or less). Because I know you're lazy, I'll provide the answer for you complete with background information available to you at click of a mouse!

Q1. What do you get 40 years after your state elects a smirking, reactionary asshole to be its Chief Executive Officer?

A1. An ungovernable state that recently had an economy larger than all but six nations on the planet.

Q2. What do you get when you cross a smirking, reactionary asshole, the American Medical Association, and President Barack Hussein Obama?

A2. Health insurance racketeers backstabbed by the AMA.